 |
These minutes are for informational purposes only. For official minutes, please contact the Town Clerk's Office.
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 12, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
Joan Howard, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting of the Simsbury Planning Commission to order at 7:36pm in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: David Ryan, Susan Bednarcyk, Ernest Gardow, Ferg Jansen, Pamela Katz, and John Loomis. Also present was William Voelker, Director of Community Planning and Development.
APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
None
PUBLIC HEARING
Application of Wayne H. Bursey, Owner, for a 2-lot subdivision of property at 24 Ferry Lane.
Chairman Howard opened by reading the public notice regarding this hearing. Mr. Wayne Bursey thanked the Commission for their time and consideration and introduced his attorney, Mr. Andrew Glassman, and his engineer, Mr. Guy Hesketh. Mr. Glassman addressed the Commission, stating that they have devised a well-engineered plan based on extensive studies of the conditions on-site. This plan is sensitive to the water considerations in the area, as well as to the concerns of the neighbors regarding septic, drainage, and well problems. Mr. Glassman referenced the letter of March 5th from Mr. David Knauf indicating that all requirements of the Public Health Code have been met. He submitted for the record a letter from their soil scientist, Mr. Thomas Pietras, indicating that the proposed septic
system improves septage issues on-site. Mr. Glassman pointed out that they have reduced the size and scope of the proposed house in accordance with the requirements of the Inland Wetlands Commission to reduce the amount of fill by approximately one third, to a nominal 580 cubic feet of fill required.
Mr. Hesketh reviewed the site map, indicating the locations of the current house, barn, and pond, as well as the proposed house, septic and well locations, pointing out that the plan meets the minimum building requirement for a 10,000 square foot building rectangle. Mr. Hesketh indicated that the proposal calls for an open space dedication of approximately 4.8 acres, abutting Simsbury Land Trust property. He gave an overview of the testing done over the last year and a half to determine the seasonal and historic high groundwater marks. He explained health code requirements for septic systems, including minimum vertical separating distances of 18 inches and minimum leachate system spread, and said the septic system has been designed to meet those codes.
Mr. Hesketh stated that the septic system serving the existing house must be abandoned, and will be replaced with a pump system, mentioning that dosing is a preferred method since it allows the leachate to disperse more efficiently. In response to Commissioner Katz’s question regarding backup power for the pump, Mr. Hesketh stated that when the power is out, there is no water into the system and no water out, so there are no concerns in that area. He indicated that sill fence erosion controls will be installed around the areas to be excavated, and that the drainage swail will have hay bale check dams to trap potential sediments. The original proposal had yard drains
Planning Commission Minutes
March 12, 2002
Page 2
being installed, but the plan has since been revised to relocate the existing driveway and provide a drainage swail to discharge water according to the current drainage patterns. In response to concerns over runoff onto Ferry Lane, Mr. Hesketh submitted a drainage analysis done subsequent to the Wetlands Commission hearing. This analysis indicated that currently runoff of 1.15 cubic feet per second discharges onto Ferry Lane; the runoff number for the proposed project is 1.16 cubic feet per second, so runoff is not affected by the proposal.
Mr. Hesketh explained that they feel they can get potable drinking water with adequate flow from a new well on the lot, but the lot would have rights to an existing well on adjacent property owned by Mr. Byer should a new well prove ineffective. He submitted a letter from Canton Well Drilling regarding the yield and potability of the current well, as well as the expectation of reaching water if a new well were to be dug. He referenced Mr. Pietras’ letter indicating that the new septic system improves the lot and pointed out that public health codes regarding septic are more stringent today that when the initial system was installed around 1977.
Chairman Howard asked for an explanation of the site elevations. Mr. Hesketh said the elevation on Ferry Lane was 164.5, and at the center line of the distribution box the elevation is 167, so the project does not call for a big mound. The first floor elevation is 168.5, so it is only about 3.5 feet above the road. He said the grading plan is minimal, and the high point of the elevation is in the driveway and septic field, just to get water to run off the leach field. He submitted a USGS map, and stated the current drainage patterns are maintained by the plan. Chairman Howard and Commissioner Katz asked about the 75-foot wetland buffer. Mr. Hesketh stated that modifications to the plan had been made in accordance with the Conservation Commission’s review, which addressed concerns
about a smaller house, less fill, and drainage issues. Mr. Bursey mentioned that the Conservation Commission had approved the modified proposal 6 to 1. Mr. Voelker clarified that the 75-foot upland review area extends the regulated area beyond the actual wetlands to provide a buffer. Commissioner Gardow asked to have a copy of the minutes from the Conservation Commission’s hearing for review. Mr. Voelker stated those minutes would be put in the next meeting packet.
Commissioner Loomis asked how they had determined the site for the proposed well and whether they had been aware of test wells dug in the 1977-78 time frame in choosing that site. Mr. Hesketh indicated that, while they were aware that test wells had been previously dug, they determined the site based on current data from Canton Well Drilling, as well as the fact that two new wells had recently been dug in that area. He reiterated that the new lot would have access to the existing well if a new well could not be achieved. Mr. Byer addressed the Commission as the owner of the property on which the current well is situated. He expressed concern that the Commission should review the easement to ensure that a new lot would have rights to the well. He also suggested this review to double check the
number of parties the well could sustain. Mr. Glassman responded to this by stating that he could provide a copy of the easement. He submitted a copy of a letter to Mr. Bursey prepared by his firm that addresses this issue. The easement does allow for the new lot to have rights to the well, and up to five people (houses) can be on the well; currently, there is only one house being serviced by the well.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 12, 2002
Page 3
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE
Application of Wayne H. Bursey, Owner, for a 2-lot subdivision of property at 24 Ferry Lane.
Chairman Howard opened the meeting to public discussion at 8:35pm. Charlotte Bacon of 123 Terry’s Plain addressed the Commission regarding problems with her well. She stated they had put in a dug well that was polluted and was never used. They then put in a 71-foot drilled well which yielded very hard water with a lot of iron. In the 1990’s they began having greater difficulties with the water, and she felt that the closer neighbors have had even more problems that she has. She referenced information provided in 1996 when a subdivision application was also presented for the 24 Ferry Lane property. This information indicated that 7 families had well problems in that area, that Mr. Dick Davis of 36 Ferry Lane had a failed septic and a polluted well, and that several sink holes
had appeared on Mr. Davis’ property, which abuts the Bursey property around the corner from the barn. Mrs. Bacon stated she did not have the dates of these well problems; Mr. McQuilkin of 21 Goodrich Road referenced attachment C from his letter to the Planning Commission, which is a copy of the letter from Mr. Davis.
Commissioner Gardow asked about the 1996 application to subdivide this property, and Mr. Voelker said he did not think the application ever made it this far last time. Commissioner Bednarcyk asked about the development of this and surrounding properties from 1977-78, and Mr. Voelker indicated he would obtain the history of the property for the next meeting. Marjorie Alspaugh of 11 Ferry Lane read from her letter, which she then submitted to the Commission, detailing her concerns. She expressed concern over the amount of fill needed for the project, mentioning that the new house at 15 Ferry Lane had required approximately 9,000 cubic yards of fill to be completed. She also expressed concerns over drainage and ponding issues, especially on Ferry Lane, as well as sewage concerns and the potential
devastation to the natural environment of this area. She cited problems she has had with settling, stating she recently needed to replace all the windows in her house, built in 1980, as a result of settling from the spongy soil in that area.
Mr. Robert McQuilkin of 21 Goodrich Road expressed concerns over well issues in the area. He clarified that the Dumais well only yields appx. 3 gal/min and is down 600 ft. His own artesian well was too mineralized to be used, and the Case well, also artesian, had to recently be abandoned. The history of artesian wells in the area is that they are low flow and highly mineralized. His major concern, though, is for the whole area, in terms of general water issues. He stated that almost everyone in the area depends on shallow wells, and the water is vulnerable to pollution and failures of one kind or another. His concerns are due to the vulnerability of the water, the high probability of flooding, and the lateral movement of subsurface water that is not well understood. Mr. McQuilkin
cited the report of Dr. John Raabe, Geologist, an expert on the topography of the Terry’s Plain area, attachment A to his letter. This lateral flow of subsurface water interconnects all the properties along that area; Mr. McQuilkin stated that Dr. Raabe’s report was responsible for the termination of a subdivision proposal done in 1977-78. Commissioner Gardow asked if that proposal had been withdrawn or denied, and Mr. Voelker said he would check on that.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 12, 2002
Page 4
Mr. McQuilkin expressed concern over flood waters collecting on the surface, especially in the area behind the Bursey barn, and cited these flood waters as being responsible for the failure of the septic system on the Davis property at 36 Ferry Lane. He read excerpts from Dr. Raabe’s report; on page 4, “Points of Petition and Concern”, he referenced the “quicksand effect” hindering subsurface foundations being built; on page 6, section 3, he referenced foundation stability, and stated that Mrs. Alspaugh’s settling problems underscore this issue; on page 6-7, he highlighted problems of proximity and septic issues. Mr. McQuilkin closed his remarks by stating he felt that due to the number of unknowns surrounding the geology/hydrology of the area, it would be questionable as to
whether a third home following the two recently built is wise.
Mr. Glassman responded that the information of the neighbors is primarily anecdotal and he felt the proposal incorporated the results of factual studies. He read from the conclusion of Dr. Raabe’s report on page 8, pointing out Dr. Raabe’s statement that “specific surface and subsurface data should be required” in evaluating development proposals. He stressed that they have acquired that data through the extensive testing process to determine the high groundwater levels, etc. Mr. Glassman noted that on attachment D of Mr. McQuilkin’s letter, all the history regarding failure of wells is prior to the development of the current house at 24 Ferry Lane. They have a source in the existing well that has serviced the house without problems for over 25 years. He said
there is no net increase to the flow of water onto Ferry Lane from the proposed plan, and he had contacted the town Department of Engineering to get the history of complaints called in by the neighbors about flooding/ponding on Ferry Lane, of which there were none.
Mr. Hesketh stated that in 1996, there were not enough studies done, but now they have done extensive studies to create a plan that addresses the specific on-site water table issues. He repeated that the amount of fill needed would be only 580 cubic yards, and said the settling issues are easily dealt with from an engineering perspective by using wider footers with rebar, etc. Regarding ponding of water near the barn, Mr. Hesketh stated that the previous owner had installed underdrains to discharge the water into the brook, so the area that used to pond no longer does. He stated that the Department of Public Works only showed records of routine maintenance to the culvert on Ferry Lane, not any specific work done to alleviate flooding. Chairman Howard asked Mr. Voelker what would be required of a
new owner to build if the lot was sold without a house, and Mr. Voelker stated the lot is tightly controlled by the restrictions already put in place by the Wetlands Commission. Any new application would have to meet those requirements. Commissioner Gardow asked Mr. Voelker when the original subdivision approval had been granted on the lot across the street (that had required 9,000 cu. yds. of fill), and Mr. Voelker indicated it had been done prior to his tenure.
Commissioner Katz asked Mr. Bursey whether he had a preference for the open space land to be town-owned or given to the Land Trust, and Mr. Bursey indicated it was his preference to see the open space dedication deeded to the Land Trust. Mr. Bursey clarified that the existing house is a 4-bedroom and the proposed house is a 3-bedroom. Mr. McQuilkin cautioned against ignoring Dr. Raabe’s warnings about the lateral flow of water in this area. He also questioned if 580 cubic yards of fill would be enough and wanted to know who would keep track of how much fill was actually brought in; Mrs. Alspaugh agreed with this concern. Chairman Howard suggested that it would be useful to have the Town Engineer, Mr. Rich Sawitzke, at the next meeting to talk about the different types of drainage –
surface and subsurface, the watershed, the brook, and the drains. Mr. Hesketh said he would be happy to reconfirm his figures on the fill with Mr. Sawitzke.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 12, 2002
Page 5
Commissioner Bednarcyk commented that it was important for the Commission to weigh equally the factual data provided by the applicant as well as the experiences of the neighbors. Mr. Glassman asked about what issues the Commission would need additional information. Chairman Howard gave the following list: water flow as it pertains to the concerns of the neighbors; drainage issues, both surface and subsurface; well rights as addressed by Mr. Byer, including a copy of the easement; history of the property from Mr. Voelker; nature of the fill, what the calculations are based upon, volume, etc.; and basement information – crawl space, slab, basement, etc. Chairman Howard asked to have Mr. Sawitzke attend the next meeting, and Mr. Voelker said he would check Mr. Sawitzke’s availability.
Commissioner Bednarcyk asked if Mr. Sawitzke could prepare an impact study and Mr. Voelker said he would discuss this with Mr. Sawitzke. Chairman Howard continued the Public Hearing to the next Commission meeting scheduled for March 26, 2002. A site walk was then scheduled for Saturday, March 16, 2002, at 10am. Commissioner Katz requested that the proposed property lines, the center point of the house, and the center point of the septic field be staked for the site walk. Mr. Hesketh agreed to do this.
REVIEW AND DISCUSSION CRCOG VIDEO – “Together We Can Grow Better”
The Commission viewed a video prepared by CRCOG, which addressed the issue of sprawl. CRCOG is preparing a “Best Practices Guide” that will show communities how to preserve the rural landscape and revitalize downtowns, how to benefit from a planned rapid transit system, and how to plan and create pedestrian-focused development. Commissioner Gardow asked Mr. Voelker if he was aware of the progress on this “Best Practices Guide”, since it would be a useful research tool in updating the Plan of Development. Mr. Voelker said he would find out.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
None
STAFF REPORTS
Commissioner Gardow requested that the CRCOG schedule be updated for inclusion in the next packet to show anticipated attendance for upcoming meetings, as determined at the February 26th Planning Commission meeting.
CORRESPONDENCE
Commissioner Bednarcyk mentioned that she had requested at a recent meeting that NEMO brochures be ordered for all the members. These brochures discuss the programs NEMO offers and can be put together to address specific issues the Commission is interested in. She said someone from NEMO can come out to do a presentation, and Chairman Howard felt this might be something to be included when the Commission brings in speakers. Chairman Howard asked Mr. Voelker to provide copies of all the items submitted to the Commission as part of the Public Hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 12, 2002
Page 6
NEW APPLICATION(S)
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 22, 2002 and February 26, 2002
Commissioner Bednarcyk moved to approve the minutes of January 22, 2002, as presented, and Commissioner Gardow seconded. Commissioner Ryan expressed concern over the content of the minutes in general, citing section 51 of “Robert’s Rules of Order”, which addresses meeting minutes. He distributed copies to the members and read pertinent excerpts. The members discussed this information. Commissioner Katz made a motion to remove the first and third paragraphs of Section III, which was seconded by Commissioner Jansen. The members discussed this. Commissioners Katz and Jansen felt this was appropriate, stating personnel issues could be addressed through other avenues. Commissioner Bednarcyk and Chairman Howard felt that everything that transpires in the meetings
should be reflected in the minutes since they are a public record. Commissioner Loomis felt the information in question was important because the purpose of the meeting of January 22nd was aborted since Mr. Tolisano was not in attendance.
Commissioner Bednarcyk asked if there were enough members present to vote on these minutes since she thought if you weren’t at the meeting you could not vote. Commissioner Katz and Chairman Howard clarified that for the purpose of approving minutes, listened and read is sufficient. If you weren’t at the meeting but you heard the tape and then read the minutes, you could vote. A vote was taken on the motion made by Commissioner Katz to delete paragraphs one and three. Three members were in favor and three members were opposed, so the motion did not carry. A vote was taken on the motion made by Commissioner Bednarcyk to approve the minutes as presented. Three members were in favor and three were opposed; therefore, the motion did not carry. The members agreed to table the
approval of the minutes of Janaury 22, 2002, until the next meeting.
Commissioner Katz made a motion to delete the first paragraph of Section 3a of the minutes of February 26, 2002, and Commissioner Ryan seconded. Commissioner Bednarcyk and Chairman
Howard had the same objection that this information should be part of the record. Commissioner Gardow felt the paragraph should be edited for modification to be approved at the next meeting. Commissioner Bednarcyk noted that on page 2, the minutes should indicate that she had requested not only the “Main Street” mailing list, but also the mailing list that was used in preparing the 1994 Plan of Development. Commissioner Katz noted that on page 5, line 2, it should read “…towns to determine their areas of rural character”, not “public” character. The members agreed to table the approval of the minutes of February 26, 2002, until the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Katz moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:17pm. Commissioner Gardow seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
____________________________
Pamela Katz, Secretary
| |
